Diesel hypermileing

[diesaroo]

Originally Posted by Viperfreak2

My mother loved driving her 1980 Audi 5000s Diesel. Whenever anyone would tailgate her *(67 horsepower!), she would floor it! They backed off real fast, or went around...

I currently own a 1987 Mercedes 190D 2.5 Turbo and the only emissions equipment it has is EGR. If I floor it, I might get a little smoke--hardly noticeable. Alot of it has to do with the health of the turbocharger, injectors etc.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on the back of a chipped dually diesel truck. "Mind if I smoke?"

I am not a proponent of excessive smoke however as this is just unburnt fuel being thrown out of the tailpipe. A little smoke ok, alot and the owner should be looking to diagnose the problem.

[diesaroo]

Originally Posted by kakalika

Here is a video of a 535d without the DPF

YouTube - 535d 3" stainless exhaust turbo back No CAT or DPF

You would have to be pretty "green" to complain about that amount of smoke.

I never understood why automobiles are held to such an ultimate standard when agricultural, construction, and oceanic tankers have either apparently no standards at all or they are extremely relaxed. Commercial Airlines?

I'm sure any diesel nut has seen this link, but just imagine the NOx and PM being belched out by this beast: YouTube - Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C the biggest engine in the world

[kakalika]

I currently own a 1987 Mercedes 190D 2.5 Turbo and the only emissions equipment it has is EGR. If I floor it, I might get a little smoke--hardly noticeable. Alot of it has to do with the health of the turbocharger, injectors etc.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on the back of a chipped dually diesel truck. "Mind if I smoke?"

I am not a proponent of excessive smoke however as this is just unburnt fuel being thrown out of the tailpipe. A little smoke ok, alot and the owner should be looking to diagnose the problem.[/QUOTE]

[alvam]

Originally Posted by JCL

Don't understand why anyone would remove the diesel particulate filter. Spewing carcinogens and ugly black soot?

[alvam]

Originally Posted by diesaroo

You would have to be pretty "green" to complain about that amount of smoke.

I never understood why automobiles are held to such an ultimate standard when agricultural, construction, and oceanic tankers have either apparently no standards at all or they are extremely relaxed. Commercial Airlines?

Um can you say politics??

[diesaroo]

Originally Posted by alvam

Um can you say politics??

I meant I don't see any logical reason why the standards 'should' be any different.

Obviously gov't agencies like CARB and the EPA are the ones dictating this, as motorists don't have the political power of say large construction contractors, farmers' organizations and oceanic freight companies.

[deutsch100]

Originally Posted by Viperfreak2

My mother loved driving her 1980 Audi 5000s Diesel. Whenever anyone would tailgate her *(67 horsepower!), she would floor it! They backed off real fast, or went around...

LOL Ha ha

In my 1983 300TD, if you pissed me off, or aggressively tailgated me...I too would just push the accelerator to the floor! Sh*t!!! No kidding, a serious black cloud would cover the offending car. It was awesome...my own secret batmobile trick!!!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by diesaroo

Removing the DPF and other emissions hardware (EGR) might not be "environmentally friendly" or legal, but it does simplify things and theoretically will reduce the amount of possible engine failure modes down the line.

I don't agree that removing the DPF and emissions hardware would simplify things. Building an engine without them in the first place, would, yes. But that isn't possible. These engines have integrated engine management strategies, you can't just remove a system and not expect the engine management system to notice. I think that butchering the software will provide additional failure modes, and add risk beyond any theoretical reliability improvements due to removal of hardware.

The EPA was very concerned that if they allowed diesels with urea, owners would tamper with them and nullify the emissions controls. It delayed the introduction of clean diesels by several years. As a result, there are tamper indicators built in, since the manufacturer had to provide assurance that the controls would still function for 100,000 miles.

I think it would be funny if someone did remove hardware, and was tested in a few years and failed. I have never re-installed emissions controls on a diesel, but I did it years back on customer gasoline-fueled vehicles that had the emissions controls removed, and subsequently failed tests. Very expensive for the owners.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by diesaroo

I meant I don't see any logical reason why the standards 'should' be any different.

Obviously gov't agencies like CARB and the EPA are the ones dictating this, as motorists don't have the political power of say large construction contractors, farmers' organizations and oceanic freight companies.

I think the only reason that the standards were different was due to the population number of polluting vehicles. They simply mattered more, given the very large number of vehicles on the road.

There are emissions standards for off-road engines, and for heavy trucks on road. They are just on different timelines.

Tier 1 was signed in 1998.

Tier 2 and Tier 3 were phased in up to 2008, but didn't cover particulate matter. They did cover NOx and HC.

Tier 4 is being phased in from 2008 through 2015. It requires post-treatment, just like current automotive diesel standards. That is why Ad Blue is available at heavy truck stops.

Tier 4 is being applied to equipment such as bulldozers and stationary engines. It has caused significant engine redesign with the manufacturers, and at least one major manufacturer withdrew entirely from the highway truck market because of it.

I think we all still see old trucks on the road, belching smoke, and don't realize that it is the grandfathered vehicles that are in this situation, not the new ones. The problem is that old heavy trucks and offroad equipment have a long life, and they won't die soon enough.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by JCL

The problem is that old heavy trucks and offroad equipment have a long life, and they won't die soon enough.

Indeed. I have seen 50 year old agricultural tractors that are still being used on farms.

And to add to the "why different standards, etc.," as you said earlier, it is a matter of priorities. The greatest pollution problems are in densly populated areas, while most agricultural tractors are in low population density areas. Logically, they are down the priority list.